| 查看: 557 | 回复: 1 | |||
[交流]
Science 2010-4-23: Medical hypotheses何去何从？ 已有1人参与
|
|
转载自： http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=17051581&sty=1 Science杂志 23 April 2010 Vol 328, Issue 5977 对最近Medical hypotheses是否要改为peer review进行了辩论，各说各有理。 Science杂志网站还专门开辟投票的栏目。 Unconventional Journals: Research Ramifications Girish N. Vyas Science 23 April 2010: 427. The News of the Week story "Elsevier to editor: Change controversial journal or resign" (M. Enserink, 12 March, p. 1316) reports on the withdrawal of a controversial HIV paper from Medical Hypotheses, a journal published by Elsevier. The paper in question claimed to refute the pivotal results of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Transfusion Safety Study, which revealed that 111 of 124 (89.5%) recipients of a single unit of HIV-infected blood became infected and that the rate of progression to AIDS within the first 38 months after infection was similar to that reported for homosexual men (1). Given such compelling data in support of HIV as the etiologic agent of AIDS, published in a prestigious medical journal, it was strange that Duesberg and Rasnick (2) put forth their hypothesis in 1998 that HIV does not cause AIDS. Propaganda exemplified by Duesberg's first and subsequent papers on the subject, and coupled with information freely disseminated through the Internet (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism), has indeed distracted from confronting AIDS in South Africa. Elsevier's due diligence in a responsible withdrawal of Duesberg's recent paper from Medical Hypotheses is commendable and will hopefully put an end to perpetuation of a dogma that is damaging to science and society. Only an effective HIV vaccine can ultimately end this drama. Girish N. Vyas E-mail: girish.vyas@ucsf.edu University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA 94143–0134, USA. References 1. E. Donegan et al., Ann. Intern. Med. 113, 733 (1990).[Abstract/Free Full Text] 2. P. Duesberg, D. Rasnick, Genetica 104, 85 (1998). [CrossRef] [Web of Science] [Medline] -------------------------------------------------------------- Unconventional Journals: Protect Nonconformists Or Syd Amit Science 23 April 2010: 427. I was dismayed to learn that Elsevier intends to remove Bruce Charlton as editor-in-chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses and to convert the journal to peer-review format ("Elsevier to editor: Change controversial journal or resign," M. Enserink, 12 March, p. 1316). I find Medical Hypotheses to be a refreshing source of independent thinking in a sphere of scientific publishing that is becoming increasingly conformist, repetitive, and sometimes outright boring. The current controversy around Medical Hypotheses—anger over papers claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS—highlights a major threat to the future of independent scientific thinking. The scientific community is undergoing continual division into exclusive clubs whose members are hostile to outsiders and their ideas. Nonconformists find it increasingly difficult to receive funding, secure tenure, and publish their hypotheses and results. This is particularly true in medical and biomedical research. Underlying this trend is the unfortunate fact that increasing specialization has led many scientists to dedicate their entire careers to very narrow lines of research. These scientists may see their careers crumble should the theoretical framework underlying their research become unstable. Consequently, they have strong incentives to keep paradigm-shifting ideas away from the limelight. Medical Hypotheses was established to give an outlet to these potentially revolutionary ideas. The hysteria surrounding the controversial HIV paper is particularly alarming, and some of the measures suggested, such as canceling Medical Hypotheses subscriptions and removing it from the MEDLINE database, are outright draconian. Those who claim to be scientists should use facts and reason, not censorship, to refute opposing views. This resort to censorship underscores the indispensable role of Medical Hypotheses as an outlet for new and challenging thoughts. Forcing Medical Hypotheses to submit to peer reviews would turn it into yet another establishment journal, thus depriving it of its essence and uniqueness. It might as well be renamed Mundane Hypotheses. Or Syd Amit E-mail: syd.amit@bc.edu Department of Mathematics, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
博士延得我，科研能力直往上蹿
已经有7人回复
-
退学或坚持读
已经有27人回复
-
面上基金申报没有其他的参与者成吗
已经有5人回复
-
有70后还继续奋斗在职场上的吗？
已经有5人回复
-
遇见不省心的家人很难过
已经有22人回复
-
多组分精馏求助
已经有6人回复
|
以下是投票的网址： http://www.sciencemag.org/extra/polls/20100423-1.dtl The non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses considers "radical, speculative, and non-mainstream scientific ideas". Recently, the journal has drawn fire for publishing papers that some say are detrimental to health care efforts. Others feel that the journal is a "refreshing source of independent thinking". The future of Medical Hypotheses is now unclear. Share your thoughts by responding to the poll on the left. Polling results reflect the votes of those who chose to participate; they are not derived from a scientific random sample. |
2楼2010-04-23 18:37:55